UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2403
ELMER T. TIMMONS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WICOMICO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY; DEIRDRE
WALKER,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 02-1113
ELMER T. TIMMONS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WICOMICO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY; DEIRDRE
WALKER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-99-2858-WMN)
Submitted: April 17, 2002 Decided: May 1, 2002
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
No. 01-2403 dismissed and No. 02-1113 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
John H. Morris, Jr., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Robin R.
Cockey, COCKEY, BRENNAN & MALONEY, P.C., Salisbury, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
In No. 01-2403, Elmer T. Timmons seeks to appeal the district
court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in Timmons’
action alleging employment discrimination. We dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction because Timmons’ notice of appeal was not
timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the
district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is
“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,
434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361
U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
October 4, 2001. Timmons’ notice of appeal was filed on November
21, 2001. Because Timmons failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal.
In No. 02-1113, Timmons appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to extend the time to note his appeal from the
order entered on October 4. The district court construed the notice
of appeal filed on November 21 as a motion to extend the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). The district court was
3
without authority to construe Timmons’ bare notice of appeal, which
contained no request for additional time, as a Rule 4(a)(5) motion.
See Wilder v. Chairman, Cent. Classification Bd., 926 F.2d 367, 371
(4th Cir. 1991); Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 901 (4th
Cir. 1989). We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of
Timmons’ motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
No. 01-2403 - DISMISSED
No. 02-1113 - AFFIRMED
4